BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with increased risk of mortality and morbidity for pregnant women and newborns. Identifying pregnant women with risk factors for GDM based on the clinical suspicion is a popular approach. However, the effectiveness of the use of a structured checklist of risk factors is yet to be evaluated. This study assessed the effectiveness of a structured checklist of risk factors in identifying pregnant women at risk of GDM at the University College Hospital, Ibadan. MATERIALS AND METHODS: It was a comparative cross-sectional study implemented in two phases. The first phase (Group A) of the study was a prospective study that involved 530 pregnant women who presented at the booking clinic. A structured checklist containing risk factors was used to identify women at the risk of GDM. The second phase (Group B) was a retrospective study of 530 pregnant women managed 2 years previously who were selected by systematic random technique. RESULTS: The mean age, gestational age at booking, gestational age at delivery and birth weight were 30.2 ± 5.2 years, 21 ± 10.8 weeks, 38.7 ± 2.7 weeks and 3.1 ± 0.7 kg respectively. The prevalence of GDM in Group A and B were 4.9% and 1.6% respectively ( P < 0.05). There was about three fold increase in identification of women at risk of GDM by use of a checklist. CONCLUSION: Identification of women at risk of GDM was approximately 3-4 fold higher with the use of checklist of risk factors. Exhaustive clinical identification with a checklist of risk factors for GDM should be encouraged.
BACKGROUND:Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with increased risk of mortality and morbidity for pregnant women and newborns. Identifying pregnant women with risk factors for GDM based on the clinical suspicion is a popular approach. However, the effectiveness of the use of a structured checklist of risk factors is yet to be evaluated. This study assessed the effectiveness of a structured checklist of risk factors in identifying pregnant women at risk of GDM at the University College Hospital, Ibadan. MATERIALS AND METHODS: It was a comparative cross-sectional study implemented in two phases. The first phase (Group A) of the study was a prospective study that involved 530 pregnant women who presented at the booking clinic. A structured checklist containing risk factors was used to identify women at the risk of GDM. The second phase (Group B) was a retrospective study of 530 pregnant women managed 2 years previously who were selected by systematic random technique. RESULTS: The mean age, gestational age at booking, gestational age at delivery and birth weight were 30.2 ± 5.2 years, 21 ± 10.8 weeks, 38.7 ± 2.7 weeks and 3.1 ± 0.7 kg respectively. The prevalence of GDM in Group A and B were 4.9% and 1.6% respectively ( P < 0.05). There was about three fold increase in identification of women at risk of GDM by use of a checklist. CONCLUSION: Identification of women at risk of GDM was approximately 3-4 fold higher with the use of checklist of risk factors. Exhaustive clinical identification with a checklist of risk factors for GDM should be encouraged.